Thank you, Jo and Elyssa (@JFletcherSaxon @elyssa_shack) for your thoughtful, intentional and respectful practice. I know safety doesn’t happen by accident, you took steps to keep us safe. I thank Catina Barrett from WLN, her practice and writing have changed my perspective, helping to deepen my thinking on this subject. Her words are my jump-off point here, Catina writes on trauma:
… feminists changed that definition to include domestic violence, to include sexual abuse and harassment of women, and others, but in particular, of women. And so I think the inequalities that we see are intersectional, transnational inequalities. (Joyfull Education)
Complexity is not easy to convey, because these things are seldom simple, so let me unpack...
Trigger warnings are typically used to give people with post-traumatic stress disorder, and others who have experienced trauma, an idea of the content they're about to encounter. The warning is intended to prepare those readers - or viewers - to expect words that may trigger a significant, and possibly debilitating, emotional reaction. PTSD, a response to trauma, is sometimes a result of hate crime. Hate crime is defined as: any criminal offence that is motivated by prejudice - sexism, racism, ableism, classism, homophobia, religious intolerance, individual and family choice – the hostility based upon a victim's difference or a perceived identity. The literature articulates hate as extremely hard to recognise by those privileged to not experience it, and because institutional culture helps hide violence, therefore prejudiced behaviour is hidden from public view.
I was stunned
Feminism might not strike you immediately as a triggering topic. But, if you take a minute to think about its opposition to misogyny and sexism, it’s clear that conversations will involve the articulation of a characteristic oppression - sexism. Feminist conversations, therefore, will articulate the violence against women that remind so many of us of the experience of pain and shame.
To address sexism, as discrimination and injustice, involves discussing the ideas that fuel aggression, the misrepresentation of women found in those narratives that drive hate speech. We can’t talk about a whole population’s safety without talking about the specific characteristics of an oppression weighing on them. The ideas that build cumulatively to marginalise groups. Oppressive organisational and institutional ideas, weighing on individuals within groups, that ultimately play out inequitably across whole localities.
Talking about equality, therefore, requires an intentional warning to create a courageous space, because injustice is hard to talk about. Should we ignore the impact of past pain we are likely to impose its reality once again. The experience of inequality is at best unsettling, and if you’re a victim, then re-living violence can be distressing. Being forewarned tells those in the room that this lack of safety and individual’s pain is acknowledged. Taking responsibility is key here, the warnings are intentional, and demand the knowledge that what will be shared may harm. Disregarding this potential harm, unfortunately, ignores the victims in the room. Furthermore, telling someone to feel safe, puts the onus on the victim to anticipate and then manage their own distress. It’s this imposition that denies experience, by silencing feeling, rather than speaking to the impact of sexism - action and ideas that are often violent, upsetting and oppressive.
Then relieved
Practices that keep us safe are sometimes seen as over the top, because they aim to help the few, and they are seen as superfluous to the most. Where badly explained, they can be assumed not to matter, and often tend to disappear in the rush and informality of a shared space. Unintentional comments, such as "we don’t need introductions, this is a safe community, we respect each other…" may stop us from using the better practice of taking care and/or doing the safety checks. Forgetting those most harmed stops us from thinking about the present harm of brave conversation, and ignoring the triggers to those already carrying the pain of past hurt. The very warning of sexism, racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, classism will stir feelings, but at least allow the individual to make decisions. Telling people that they can turn off the camera is explicit. It calls us all to acknowledge what will hurt some is in the room. It draws the group’s attention to the room - its elephants.
Then angry
So, why anger? It suddenly occurred to me that I’d never been in a space where I had been warned about the ableism I was about to experience. Never!! I’ve seen trigger warnings, but rarely about ableism - the oppression disabled people face. This, I think, has a lot to do with language and a wider lack of nuanced definitions. Too few of us work to a written definition of ableism, fewer still engage with its parity to other characteristics, the understanding of institutional discrimination and societal injustice. The forces that drive ableism, that many will not equate to harm or oppression. This lack of fluency translates into poor practice, for example being asked to not make a fuss, or to ignore hurtful comments because they were not meant, rather than exploring why ideas can be harmful. Far more oppressive, in my experience, is that those most triggered are asked to share why they feel uncomfortable. Again adding to the initial impact of disrespectful wording and poor practice, by being asked to explain why ableism, for example, is traumatic. It’s rather like having to describe what is crushing you, to prove how really painful it is.
Leadership
Viewed as an ability to account, accountability calls us to question the organisational impact of business activity on populations. Therefore, it is not enough to just consider the people in the room, certainly a good starting point, but the locality more widely. As statistics suggest, disabled people in any locality make up 1 in 10 [of which fewer will identify as Disabled], then most rooms need to be safe. The trigger warning, therefore, needs to address the possibility of the people in the room, gestimated on population. Trigger warnings are required, therefore, without anyone needing to raise a hand. Because, if demand identity - or victim’s disclosure - then we’ll doubly add to potential discomfort and harm.
Without the trigger warning, erasure replaces accountability, as the power dynamics shifts blame onto those in receipt of harm – not to the topics of conversations that fuel it. Highlighting possible harm in a trigger warning, by defining the ageism, classism, racism, homophobia in the room, demonstrates the direction of responsibility. Better to articulate warnings at every meeting, calling attention to the space isn’t safe than impose the dismissal of unfair rules, barriers to participation or the harm of meaningless wording. The aim is to highlight the violence, not perpetuate an assumption of equitable safety. Telling me to fit in isn’t kind, but an acknowledgement of difficulty Is, I can live with Imperfections, but I’m oppressed by denial and lack of acknowledgement.
Trigger warnings, from this perspective, is the articulated accountability – reflection for practice - in stated acknowledgement. The ability to view the potential harm of a courageous conversation. It is the responsibility taken to give a heads up, by saying ’’we understand this can upset”. A seismic shift in power-sharing, because taking account of potential harm, demonstrates a voiced responsibility for safety.
If you are not clear as to what may be triggering then best not go public. Celebrating community and holding abuse up for scrutiny are very different. If you are sharing stuff on social media, your readers will value a trigger warning if content is about the harm imposed on groups, because those viewing your content are a diverse group and some will be victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment